[BuckeyeNuts]

Hi,

My wife and I are moving to Lady Lake soon. We had a horrible week...she got layed off from her job after 23 years of excellent performance at the credit union. We are devastated. We live in South Florida...Hollywood...and feel that it is time to leave. Her Dad and step Mom live in The Villages. We have visited the area several times and we love it.

We are not over 55 yet. I sure feel like it, but the span of geological times does not concur. I am 46 and she is 45. I would like to know if The Villages has any homes that we can purchase. Could there be a separate area for those of us a little younger? We have no kids...just a great little dog named Frisky.

I found some homes on the other side of the road...route 27...Harbor Hills...but would rather live in The Villages. I also have issues with paying fees to associations...I guess they are pretty mandatory around those parts?
Thanks for any advice you could give us.

[Russ_Boston]

By rule the Villages can have 20% of homeowners who are under 55. You can buy in The Villages if you find something that suits you.

The amenity fee seems to be about $140 per month from what I read on this forum and it is not optional. There may also be a bond on top of the purchase price + some yearly district fees. I'm sure that your in-laws can fill you in on what they pay.

I'm very sorry to hear about your personal situation but it sounds like you have it under control. Good luck.

Russ

[aln]

And, You'll probably find a few opportunities for employment here.
Tho' probably not very high paying.
With the CU experience your wife can probably find a banking job. We seem to have an abundance of them. It seems the Villages Bank, Citizens 1st has openings pretty oftenand from what I hear, the bennies working for TV is pretty good.
Best of luck to you

[billethkid]

The Villages, the age restriction does not apply. There is no requirement on the home owner to abide by TV new home sale guideleine.

BTK

[NJblue]

Boy, I'm not so sure about some of these responses. I'm not saying they are wrong, but they don't pass my "smell" test. I think Russ is correct about the 20% rule, but, unless I'm mistaken, I think the lower limit is age 50. That is, up to 20% can be between 50 and 55. I'm willing to be proven wrong on this.

As far as resales are concerned, I can't imagine how a 55+ community could stay that way if rules governing the sales of property only apply to new sales. If that were the case, then people buying resales could have children as well. I suspect that there are deed restrictions which apply to the property and which must be complied with by future buyers. Again, I'm willing to be proven wrong (but hope not).

[rshoffer]

Check out The Village at Parkwood.... it essentially borders TV, the brand new homes are beautiful and VERY affordable.

[spk7951]

When we were looking to move here last summer the sales rep told us about the 20% rule for folks under 55. Since we were both 53 we had to get "permission" to buy and move in. But that "permission' was granted almost instantly. However, one of our neighbors, who are in their mid 40's, had a much tougher time then we did getting cleared.

[Rokinronda]

Russ is correct. As long as 80%+ are 55+ you may purchase. No one under 19 is allowed to live in your dwelling. We purchased here in 2004. I was 48 and hub was 52.........Best wishes to you in finding your new home!

Originally Posted by Russ_Boston

By rule the Villages can have 20% of homeowners who are under 55. You can buy in The Villages if you find something that suits you.

The amenity fee seems to be about $140 per month from what I read on this forum and it is not optional. There may also be a bond on top of the purchase price + some yearly district fees. I'm sure that your in-laws can fill you in on what they pay.

I'm very sorry to hear about your personal situation but it sounds like you have it under control. Good luck.

Russ

[rshoffer]

Originally Posted by spk7951

When we were looking to move here last summer the sales rep told us about the 20% rule for folks under 55. Since we were both 53 we had to get "permission" to buy and move in. But that "permission' was granted almost instantly. However, one of our neighbors, who are in their mid 40's, had a much tougher time then we did getting cleared.

new or previously owned home?

[billethkid]

department to get some clarification.
The age requirement is that one of the individuals buying a "new" home must be 55 years of age.

If both are younger than 55, each case is reviewed separately. As one can imagine there could be a single individual, or a couple or either with children.
The cut off on the age of the children allowed to live permanently is 18 or younger.

They said there is no magic number like 20% non 55.....

Regarding new....the home owner does in fact have the authority to sell to some one under 55. The best example is a couple in their 40's....the only requirement is the live and abide by the rules/restrictions of TV.

It sounds to me while there are "guidelines".....exceptions to the guidelines are handled on an individual basis.

So with the above minimal information one can interpolate, extrapolate or smell the next step.

Good luck

BTK

[NJblue]

I looked into it a bit more and can see where there can be confusion on this.

This article is quite informative:
http://www.meeb.com/legal_alert/legal_alert_09_04.htm

Essentially it says that there are HUD requirements that specify that for a community to be a 55+ community (and thus be allowed to discriminate against children), the developer/association MUST restrict occupancy to those under 55 to no more than 20%. HUD does not specify a lower limit as to the age of these 20-percent buyers. However, it DOES give leeway to the developer/association to be MORE restrictive on this if they desire. In other words, a developer is allowed to mandate that ALL residents must be over 55 if it desires.

Where I got the 50-year lower limit was from another developer who obviously imposed this as his lower limit on age (i.e, at least one person must be over 50 and that no more than 20% of the houses could be occupied by households whose oldest member was between 50 and 55). What I have not seen in writing is what TV's rules actually are. They may also have a similar restriction on at least one member of the household must be over 50 ... or they may allow any age as long as they maintain the number of households under 55 to no more than 20 percent. My gut (and my fading memory from discussions with our sales agent) tells me that TV also imposes a 50-year lower limit on the oldest member of the household. However, it certainly is worth looking into if you don't meet the 55 age limit. Apparently every developer can have his own rules as long as he maintains at least 80% of the units with at least one person above 55.

[billethkid]

Oooopppps!!

[spk7951]

Both our house and our neighbors were bought new in Hadley.

[EdV]

Section 2.24 of the Villages of Lake Sumter Declaration of Restrictions (available for viewing in the Nuts and Bolts section of this forum) states:

"2.24 The Subdivision is an adult community designed to provide housing for persons 55 years of age or older. All Homes that are occupied must be occupied by at least one person who is at least fifty-five (55) years of age. No person under nineteen (19) years of age may be a permanent resident of a Home, except that persons below the age of nineteen (19) years may be permitted to visit and temporarily reside for periods not exceeding thirty (30) days in total in any calendar year period. The Developer or its designee in its sole discretion shall have the right to establish hardship exceptions to permit individuals between the ages of nineteen (19) and fifty-five (55) to permanently reside in a Home even though there is not a permanent resident in the Home who is fifty-five (55) years of age or over, providing that said exceptions shall not be permitted in situations where the granting of a hardship exception would result in less than 80% of the Homesites in the Subdivision having less than one resident fifty-five (55) years of age or older, it being the intent that at least 80% of the units shall at all times have at least one resident fifty-five (55) years of age or older. The Developer shall establish rules, regulations policies and procedures for the purpose of assuring that the foregoing required percentages of adult occupancy are maintained at all times. The Developer or its designee shall have the sole and absolute authority to deny occupancy of a Home by any person(s) who would thereby create a violation of the aforesaid percentages of adult occupancy. Permanent occupancy or residency may be further defined in the Rules and Regulations of the Subdivision as may be promulgated by the Developer or its designee from time to time. All residents shall certify from time to time as requested by the Developer, the names and dates of birth of all occupants of a Home."

Notice that it states the Developer’s intention to maintain the 80% 55+ ratio. This is needed in order to comply with Federal laws allowing a community to enforce the restriction.

[BuckeyeNuts]

Hey, thanks everyone...great info...but still not a definite as it looks like it will be a case by case decision. I hope I pass muster with the Village elders!

Any information about jobs for us would be awesome...in fact, why don't one of you just hire the both of us right now. You know you want to! I would think a job selling golf carts would rule. I own an exterminating company down here in Hollywood...I really don't want to kill bugs anymore.

It's peanut butter jelly time

Sorry, where was I...begging for a job...any good driving jobs around town...what are the best part time jobs you can think of that are available?

The other question...do Villagers want people under 55 to move into their community? Are younger couples treated differently?

I have done some homework and I see nothing about a CDD that looks anything like reasonable with the way the money gets spent without residents having any type of say...the Villages sure has a lot of fees. We don't have bonds, CDD fees or community impact fee's down here. Sounds kind of whacked out to me. I understand what they are for...and I agree with the amenity fee, but a community impact fee? Ewwwwwww...that sounds awful. Those developers ain't no dummies.

I really do appreciate your time and effort here. God bless. V